## Facts

- Robert Hall, a Black employee, sued his employer alleging racially discriminatory employment practices affecting himself and other similarly situated Black employees.
- Hall sought declaratory and injunctive relief under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
- During the case, Ray Tate, another Black employee, moved to intervene as an additional plaintiff.
- The employer opposed intervention, arguing Title VII rights could not be enforced through a Rule 23 class action and that Tate had not independently completed EEOC procedures.

## Issues

1. Whether a Title VII claim seeking injunctive relief for alleged racially discriminatory employment practices may proceed as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(3), even if the discrimination is shown through the practices’ application rather than an express discriminatory policy.
2. Whether a similarly situated employee who did not individually complete EEOC procedures may intervene in a Title VII action after another employee has invoked and exhausted the EEOC process regarding the same alleged practices.

## Decision

- The court held the action was maintainable as a Rule 23(a)(3) class action for injunctive relief challenging racially discriminatory employment practices.
- The court granted Tate’s motion to intervene.
- The court reasoned there was no meaningful distinction, for class-injunctive purposes, between discrimination stated on the face of a policy and discrimination demonstrated by analyzing how practices are applied.
- The court concluded that race discrimination, if present, is class-based and therefore presents a common question of law or fact with common relief appropriate for class treatment.
- The court held that once EEOC procedures concerning the challenged practices have been invoked and exhausted by one aggrieved employee, similarly situated employees may intervene without repeating the full EEOC process.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 23(a)(3) permits a class action when rights are several but share a common question of law or fact and common relief is sought, and the class is sufficiently numerous that joinder is impracticable.
- Alleged racial discrimination in employment can supply the commonality needed for class-wide injunctive and declaratory relief, even when established through the application of practices rather than an explicit policy.
- Title VII’s EEOC charge and conciliation requirements serve to encourage voluntary compliance; they need not be applied in a way that requires duplicative administrative filings and repetitive conciliation efforts for the same allegedly unlawful practices when additional, similarly situated employees seek to join an existing case.

## Conclusion

The court treated the Title VII race-discrimination challenge as suitable for class-wide injunctive relief under Rule 23(a)(3) and permitted a similarly situated employee to intervene without separate EEOC exhaustion because the administrative prerequisite had already been satisfied for the challenged practices and further duplication would not advance conciliation.


Hall v. Werthan Bag Corp., 251 F. Supp. 184 (M.D. Tenn. 1966)